What are the rules and recent changes about royal titles for Archie and Lilibet?

1. The legal rule that governs who is a prince or princess

The entitlement stems from the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V, which limits automatic princely status to the sovereign’s children, male‑line grandchildren, and the eldest son of the heir apparent; under that rule, a child who is a great‑grandchild at birth does not automatically receive the style ^[6]. When a great‑grandchild’s grandparent becomes monarch, their legal status can change overnight: Archie and Lilibet were great‑grandchildren of Elizabeth II and therefore not princes at birth, but became eligible once Charles acceded to the throne ^{[7] [3]}.

2. What actually changed in 2022–2023

The practical change began with Charles’s accession in September 2022, which made Harry’s children grandchildren of the monarch and therefore eligible for princely titles under the existing 1917 rules ^{[2] [3]}. The public and official confirmation came after the Sussexes used the titles — notably when Meghan and Harry announced Lilibet’s christening in March 2023 and referred to her as “Princess Lilibet,” after which the Royal Family website updated their entries in the line of succession to “Prince Archie of Sussex” and “Princess Lilibet of Sussex” ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

3. How usage versus entitlement differs — and who decides

Entitlement under letters patent is automatic when the succession condition is met, but styling in public life depends on whether parents, the palace, and passport/administrative systems reflect that usage; Harry and Meghan initially chose not to use princely styles for Archie and Lilibet when they were born, listing them as “Master” and “Miss” Mountbatten‑Windsor, and only later adopted the princely styles publicly, prompting the palace website update ^{[7] [1] [4]}. Media reporting has focused on both the legal entitlement and the family’s choice to exercise it, and some outlets have speculated about administrative wrinkles such as passports or palace consent, though reporting on those specific administrative disputes is limited and sometimes anecdotal ^[8].

4. Public debate and competing narratives

Coverage ranges from straightforward legal explanation to charged commentary: mainstream outlets documented the eligibility and website update as a technical consequence of the king’s accession and the Sussexes’ statement ^{[2] [3]}, while tabloid pieces have framed the move as a deliberate reclamation or “clinging” to royal status by Harry and Meghan ^[6]. Other commentary highlights the family’s distance from royal duties and questions how prominently the Sussex children will feature in the royal narrative—some reports even suggest the King emphasizes other grandchildren when speaking publicly, a claim largely based on interpretation of royal appearances rather than a documented change to the children’s legal status ^[9].

5. What remains unclear or disputed in reporting

Sources consistently show the legal pathway and the 2023 website update ^{[1] [4] [2]}, but reporting diverges on motive and consequence: whether the Sussexes’ decision signals a future public role for the children, whether the palace formally “issued” fresh letters patent, and whether there were behind‑the‑scenes disputes over passports or wording are matters reported with varying levels of sourcing and speculation ^{[5] [8]}. Where claims go beyond the documented entitlement and website change, available reporting either offers conjecture or cites unnamed sources, so firm conclusions about motive or private palace negotiations cannot be drawn from the provided material ^{[6] [8]}.